thanks folks i think i tried all the suggestions but still no luck
even tried a different dtd from strict to transitional
if your still interested the page is:http://www.1614-douglas-road.com/c15.html
i tried color=black as well as the #......s
i must have some basic 101 problem
bob

"dorayme" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In article <>,
> richard <> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 15:18:15 -0700, bbxrider wrote:
>>
>> > i have this css class
>> > .tble1, .tble1 TD, .tble TH
>> > {
>> > font-family:verdana;
>> > font-size:10pt;
>> > colorrange;
>> > }
>> > and invoke it in a table
>> > <table cellspacing="1" cellpadding="15" class="tble1">
>> >
>> > i get the font style and size ok in the td's, but color is always white
>> >
>> > it needs to be done differently?
>> > bob
>>
>> It may be that the word "orange" is not recognized by the type of html
>> you
>> are using. Try using color:#FF00FF or color:RGB(0,0,0)
>> Only a limited few color names are allowed in transitional.
>
> Or perhaps particular browsers? All mine show it even with
> doctypes changed to various ones or no doctype? Have heard this
> about orange before, come to think of it, in some posts here.
>
> I thought that the comma construction in this case would not work
> but was wrong. Sorry.
>
> (just btw, I don't think #fof is orange. #f90 might do)
>
> --
> dorayme

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:58:16
GMT bbxrider scribed:
> thanks folks i think i tried all the suggestions but still no luck
> even tried a different dtd from strict to transitional
> if your still interested the page is:
> http://www.1614-douglas-road.com/c15.html
> i tried color=black as well as the #......s
> i must have some basic 101 problem
> bob

From what I see, the content is within links - which will inherit the link
color.

"bbxrider" <> wrote in message
news:...
> thanks folks i think i tried all the suggestions but still no luck
> even tried a different dtd from strict to transitional
> if your still interested the page is:
> http://www.1614-douglas-road.com/c15.html

<sigh> Would it not have been a whole lot quicker to have provided this link
in your original post? Then we wouldn't have had to waste a whole morning
conjecturing what may be wrong.

The text that you want to be orange is in anchor (<a>). elements

You specify .tble1 {color: black;} but you also specify a {color: #fffff}.
Guess which rule is more specific to those anchor elements?

BTW this took me about three seconds to determine with Firebug. Simply point
to the offending text and read off the style pane what style rules apply to
that text and, more to the point, which have been overridden.

I recommend you install Firebug. If you need to ask here again then supply
the URL up front.

Oh, BTW, do not publish an image to the web that is over half a megabyte.
It's a waste of my bandwidth and yes, sometimes I pay $0.25 per megabyte.

bbxrider wrote:
> thanks folks i think i tried all the suggestions but still no luck
> even tried a different dtd from strict to transitional
> if your still interested the page is:
> http://www.1614-douglas-road.com/c15.html
> i tried color=black as well as the #......s
> i must have some basic 101 problem

#1 Your TABLE is *not* inside the DIV that you styled with color orange.

#2 You have styled your links <A> as white, which they are per your
stylesheet:

rf wrote:
>
> "bbxrider" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> thanks folks i think i tried all the suggestions but still no luck
>> even tried a different dtd from strict to transitional
>> if your still interested the page is:
>> http://www.1614-douglas-road.com/c15.html
>
><sigh> Would it not have been a whole lot quicker to have provided this link
> in your original post? Then we wouldn't have had to waste a whole morning
> conjecturing what may be wrong.
>
> The text that you want to be orange is in anchor (<a>). elements
>
> You specify .tble1 {color: black;} but you also specify a {color: #fffff}.
> Guess which rule is more specific to those anchor elements?
>
> BTW this took me about three seconds to determine with Firebug. Simply point
> to the offending text and read off the style pane what style rules apply to
> that text and, more to the point, which have been overridden.
>
> I recommend you install Firebug. If you need to ask here again then supply
> the URL up front.
>
> Oh, BTW, do not publish an image to the web that is over half a megabyte.
> It's a waste of my bandwidth and yes, sometimes I pay $0.25 per megabyte.

I don't pay per use, but with that kind of huge image, I still move on
and another site gets my attention and/or money.

"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
news:...
> rf wrote:
>> Oh, BTW, do not publish an image to the web that is over half a megabyte.
>> It's a waste of my bandwidth and yes, sometimes I pay $0.25 per megabyte.
>
> I don't pay per use,

Neither do I usually, except when someone lets loose on google maps and uses
up my 3 gig/month :-(
> but with that kind of huge image, I still move on
> and another site gets my attention and/or money.

Indeed. Even on cable it's easy enough to see the image arriving in slices
and to press the stop/back button. Dial up people have *already* gone
elsewhere

rf wrote:
>
> "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> rf wrote:
>
>>> Oh, BTW, do not publish an image to the web that is over half a megabyte.
>>> It's a waste of my bandwidth and yes, sometimes I pay $0.25 per megabyte.
>>
>> I don't pay per use,
>
> Neither do I usually, except when someone lets loose on google maps and uses
> up my 3 gig/month :-(

I don't do Google Maps.
>> but with that kind of huge image, I still move on
>> and another site gets my attention and/or money.
>
> Indeed. Even on cable it's easy enough to see the image arriving in slices
> and to press the stop/back button. Dial up people have *already* gone
> elsewhere

Hint: if you have no idea of the problem, still less a solution, just shut
up. If you tried to be funny, well, you weren't.

Seriously, in order of preference,
1) Use valid HTML, and check that it's valid.
2) Use CSS by the book, and check that too.
3) Now re-check: you failed item 1, because lack of DOCTYPE triggers Quirks
Mode.
4) Don't use Verdana.
5) Don't use 10pt or any other size in pt units.
6) Don't use nonstandard color names like orange. If you don't know which
color names are standard, don't use color names.
7) Don't use tables just as a layout tool unless you know what you're doing
(and you don't know now).
8) If problems remain, post a URL and specify the browser(s) you used.
Unless, of course, you just want to waste everyone's time, including yours.

Scripsit Bone Ur:
> From what I see, the content is within links - which will inherit the
> link color.

There has been a lot of disinformation in the thread (and, someone might
add, the original question called it, e.g. by its failure to supply a URL).
It would be pointless to correct it all, but I'll take a bite on this one,
since it was probably an unintentional mistake, and a common one.

Links never inherit colors, in practice. In theory they could, but in
reality, in any browsing situation where different colors are available at
all, the browser's style sheet sets colors for links. Author and user style
sheets may override such settings, but in any case, links have a color (or
colors, different colors for a link in different states) set for them.

And an element never inherits a property value if it has a value assigned
for that property. People just fail to understand what inheritance means.
This is part of the general failure to understand the "C" in "CSS".

So if some text is within a link, it _gets_ a link color. If a link has an
inner element, say <a href="...">...<span>...</span>...</a>, then the
_inner_ element may inherit the link color (and will, unless some style
sheet sets color for it).

thanks for all the help and apologies for wasting your time, i will check
out firebug
i learned a lot about nesting and overriding for the formatting
will have to figure out the formatting for any web pics
i started with jpg, and had read some that png was better for web, that it
had a smaller file size, etc,
my mistake, after saving the orig jpg that was 85k into png, it ballooned to
the .5mg, i never
checked the file size, so that has been changed back to a more reasonable
85k jpg
and now with further checking finding other web pages with jpg's that have
decent resolution, with only
a 20k file size. when i tried saving my 85k jpg to a lower quality/smaller
size, the resulting file size was
down to 49k but the quality was getting pretty bad. so thats another project
bob

"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
news:869a6$472d3f57$40cba7c4$...
> bbxrider wrote:
>> thanks folks i think i tried all the suggestions but still no luck
>> even tried a different dtd from strict to transitional
>> if your still interested the page is:
>> http://www.1614-douglas-road.com/c15.html
>> i tried color=black as well as the #......s
>> i must have some basic 101 problem
>
> #1 Your TABLE is *not* inside the DIV that you styled with color orange.
>
> #2 You have styled your links <A> as white, which they are per your
> stylesheet:
>
> a {
>
> color: #fff;
>
> font-weight: bold;
>
> text-decoration: none;
>
> }
>
>
>
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Jonathan
> -------------------
> LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
> http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:15:32
GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:
> Scripsit Bone Ur:
>
>> From what I see, the content is within links - which will inherit the
>> link color.
>
> There has been a lot of disinformation in the thread (and, someone
> might add, the original question called it, e.g. by its failure to
> supply a URL). It would be pointless to correct it all, but I'll take
> a bite on this one, since it was probably an unintentional mistake,
> and a common one.
>
> Links never inherit colors, in practice. In theory they could, but in
> reality, in any browsing situation where different colors are
> available at all, the browser's style sheet sets colors for links.
> Author and user style sheets may override such settings, but in any
> case, links have a color (or colors, different colors for a link in
> different states) set for them.
>
> And an element never inherits a property value if it has a value
> assigned for that property. People just fail to understand what
> inheritance means. This is part of the general failure to understand
> the "C" in "CSS".
>
> So if some text is within a link, it _gets_ a link color. If a link
> has an inner element, say <a href="...">...<span>...</span>...</a>,
> then the _inner_ element may inherit the link color (and will, unless
> some style sheet sets color for it).

Well, yes, all that is very precise, but I was using the English word
"inherit" to mean "get", not the css-definition "inherit" to mean
"whatever". I can see how it might be confusing to an expert, but I
believed the meaning to be clearer to the OP as I framed it.

--
Bone Ur

When I was a young man I learned that having sex with a woman is fun until
you either get caught or married.

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:04:28
GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:
>> Not sure, but I think Verdana only comes in white.
>
> No, it's because tables are white in November.
>
> Hint: if you have no idea of the problem, still less a solution, just
> shut up. If you tried to be funny, well, you weren't.

Was too. You're just in a crabby mood.

--
Bone Ur

When I was a young man I learned that having sex with a woman is fun until
you either get caught or married.

And you apparently failed to understand it, since by Usenet conventions,
lack of comprehensive reading is indicated by the use of comprehensive
quotation.
> but I was using the English word
> "inherit" to mean "get",

That was foolish. Check your English dictionary, and you will get (not
inherit) some understanding in this matter.
> not the css-definition "inherit" to mean
> "whatever".

When you use words that are CSS terms in a specifically CSS context, you
should use them in their CSS meanings.
> I can see how it might be confusing to an expert,

No, experts immediately see that _you_ are confused, but the vast majority
will be confused by your incorrect explanation.
> but I
> believed the meaning to be clearer to the OP as I framed it.

If you meant "get", surely "get" would have been clearer than "inherit". The
truth is that you tried to use CSS jargon and failed.

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:11:29
GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:
> Scripsit Bone Ur:
>
>> Well, yes, all that is very precise,
>
> And you apparently failed to understand it, since by Usenet
> conventions, lack of comprehensive reading is indicated by the use of
> comprehensive quotation.

Is there a reference for this "convention" or do you just have an
inherited prejudice for comprehensive quoatation?
>> but I was using the English word
>> "inherit" to mean "get",
>
> That was foolish. Check your English dictionary, and you will get (not
> inherit) some understanding in this matter.

It may have been imperfect but was hardly foolish in the realistic sense
of the word. Of course, some could make it _seem_ foolish by blathering
unbecomingly in an adult environment.
> When you use words that are CSS terms in a specifically CSS context,
> you should use them in their CSS meanings.

Why? If a word has a paramount English meaning, can not that override a
subordinate, more-specific context? I'll agree that using "inherit" as I
did may have been technically (from a css perspective) awkward, but not
prohibitively so.
>> I can see how it might be confusing to an expert,
>
> No, experts immediately see that _you_ are confused, but the vast
> majority will be confused by your incorrect explanation.

Well, I'm not confused and my explanation isn't or wasn't incorrect.
However, you make a good case for how easily experts can be confused.
>> but I
>> believed the meaning to be clearer to the OP as I framed it.
>
> If you meant "get", surely "get" would have been clearer than
> "inherit".

True. Especially to one knowing English as a second language (however
well).

The truth is that you tried to use CSS jargon and failed.

That's patently untrue. The truth is that you fail to understand all the
nuances of the more fundamental language used to convey the information.

--
Bone Ur

When I was a young man I learned that having sex with a woman is fun
until you either get caught or married.

Share This Page

Welcome to The Coding Forums!

Welcome to the Coding Forums, the place to chat about anything related to programming and coding languages.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask questions about coding or chat with the community and help others.
Sign up now!